Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hiroshima (1946)

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 275 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#141

Post by wiseowise »

slg wrote: post #95
nelox wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, actually try and put yourself in the shoes of American leadership responsible for making the decision to continue with an invasion of Japan without using nuclear weapons. American casualty estimates exceeded 500,000, and Japanese fatalities were expected to be in the millions—with some projections placing them between 5 million and 10 million depending on the length and scope of the conflict. The U.S. had limite…

Why is this discussion always a binary choice between a land invasion of Japan or dropping the bombs exactly how we did? For example, there is rarely any discussion of whether another target with fewer civilian casualties could have accomplished the same result.

Because purpose of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn’t to inflict as many casualties as possible? They were two major military hubs.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#142

Post by muppetman »

udev4096 wrote: post #133
throw0101d wrote: post #41

If anyone thinks that dropping the bombs was unnecessary, I would recommend reading Barrett's 140 Days to Hiroshima: The Story of Japan's Last Chance to Avert Armageddon : * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51089656-140-days-to-hir... * https://www.nationalww2museum.org/about-us/notes-museum/140-... It documents, using Japanese source material including interviews with the principals involved, the decision making…

[flagged]

I'm not saying you're right or you're wrong. Only that your opinion isn't fact, so don't act like you're presenting one. Calling someone brainwashed because you disagree with them only serves to make you look a total fool, not them.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#143

Post by yes_really »

alexjplant wrote: post #43
karlgkk wrote: post #30

The atrocities that the Japanese military committed, consistently and repeatedly and combined with their attack on pearl harbor, meant that Americans of the time on the front lines had few qualms or issues with dropping the bomb. Truman famously called Oppenheimer a "cry baby" when Oppenheimer expressed doubt. Truman had spent the past decade dealing with the war in his capacity as senator and vice president - seeing…

> Now, this isn't to say that America was right or not right to drop one or both bombs. It may "feel" like I'm saying "the Japanese deserved it for their behavior" - that's not a belief I hold, either. Some contemporaries of note didn't think it was justified either [1]. Eisenhower, a decorated war hero who later cautioned against the over-expansion of the military industrial complex in his Presidential farewell spee…

> the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives

FYI it is estimated that the war would go on until 1947 if the bombs were not dropped. There would be millions of American lives lost in that case.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#144

Post by opo »

ekianjo wrote: post #65
InTheArena wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is mostly untrue. Most of this narrative comes from Soviet propaganda that was later propagated by anti-Western and anti-war groups in the United States. More recently, it's gotten more attention as Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Rudolfovich Solovyov use it as a useful tool to build their narrative that only Russia was responsible for World War II's victory and to justify their constant threats of nuclear warfare.…

> The historical record is very clear, as is Hirohito's own statement at the time thats just the official word. The coming Soviet invasion was definitely a factor.

The Soviets could never have done a large invasion of Japan. They had a few ships that the USA had given them as part of Project Hula, but that is nothing compared to what would be needed for a full scale invasion of Japan.

In comparison, the proposed allied invasion was planned to have 42 aircraft carriers, 24 battleships, and 400 destroyers and destroyer escorts.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#145

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

InTheArena wrote: post #22
prmph wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I understand that Japan gave up, not so much because of the bomb, but mostly because of the Soviet invasion and capture of Manchuria (and the implied threat of an invasion of the mainland), after the war in Europe had been won. But I still struggle to understand the Japanese mentality. Were they OK with the prospect of city after city being atom- or fire-bombed, so long as no ground invasion occurred?

This is mostly untrue. Most of this narrative comes from Soviet propaganda that was later propagated by anti-Western and anti-war groups in the United States. More recently, it's gotten more attention as Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Rudolfovich Solovyov use it as a useful tool to build their narrative that only Russia was responsible for World War II's victory and to justify their constant threats of nuclear warfare.…

Hirohito's surrender speech to the army pointed to the entry of the Soviet Union into the war as the main reason for surrender:

"Now that the Soviet Union has entered the war against us, to continue the war under the present internal and external conditions would be only to increase needlessly the ravages of war finally to the point of endangering the very foundation of the Empire's existence."

Hirohito said different things to different audiences.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#146

Post by wiseowise »

_trampeltier wrote: post #83
ForOldHack wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the alternatives of nationalism are to fight to the very last man, and cause 8 times the number of casualties. ( Perhaps somewhat more...). Hirohito knew that the military was going to do that.

With your logic, it would be ok for Isreal to nuke Gaza now ond for Russia to nuke the Ukraine.

Both Israel and Russia are aggressors in the wars. It’s really not comparable.

Would Ukraine have every right to use atom bomb if it had one? Absolutely.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#147

Post by wiseowise »

brabel wrote: post #121
petermcneeley wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under which conditions is nuking a city not a horrific warcrime?

Never. They could have blockaded Japan. They could have negotiated with the Russians, as at the time they were “sharing” Germany and were more or less on the same side. They could even just go home, Japan was already no military threat after the horrific fire bombing. The fact that they chose to do the unthinkable, and that Americans defend that decision to this day, goes to show what kind of people they really are.…

> They could have negotiated with the Russians

And got second Korea in the long run? No, thanks.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#148

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

georgeecollins wrote: post #35
InTheArena wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is mostly untrue. Most of this narrative comes from Soviet propaganda that was later propagated by anti-Western and anti-war groups in the United States. More recently, it's gotten more attention as Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Rudolfovich Solovyov use it as a useful tool to build their narrative that only Russia was responsible for World War II's victory and to justify their constant threats of nuclear warfare.…

The other thing that gets glossed over in the "it was the soviets, not the bomb that caused the surrender" is that the USSR knew the US had the atomic bomb and realized it might end the war. They had territorial objectives of their own and wanted to join the conflict with (understandably) minimal casualties. If they had thought the war was going to last another year they might waited a bit longer to join. I really st…

The USSR entered the war against Japan precisely 3 months after the defeat of Nazi Germany, exactly as they promised to the Western Allies at Yalta.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#149

Post by yes_really »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #6

The singular horror of this event really is so difficult to describe, definitely one of the low points of human history which we must vow to never again repeat, under any circumstances.

The fault of this event lies on Japan, not the US. Japan was the aggressor who started the war. Japan was "fighting to the end" and gave no indications it would surrender. It is estimated that the war would go on to 1947 had the bombs not been dropped. That would have caused the deaths of millions or tens oof million more people. It is a tragedy that people died, but the blame lies in Japan's actions, not the US'.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#150

Post by wiseowise »

udev4096 wrote: post #133
throw0101d wrote: post #41

If anyone thinks that dropping the bombs was unnecessary, I would recommend reading Barrett's 140 Days to Hiroshima: The Story of Japan's Last Chance to Avert Armageddon : * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51089656-140-days-to-hir... * https://www.nationalww2museum.org/about-us/notes-museum/140-... It documents, using Japanese source material including interviews with the principals involved, the decision making…

[flagged]

Broke: countless of arguments arguing that nukes were justified, citing contemporaries from both sides of the time

Woke: you’re all brainwashed, because I said so

Post reply on HN